Yes, quite right, Zaphir, it explains the experiment, but not the phenomenon. Yet the experiment doesn't necessarily demonstrate that particles even have a wave nature, nor the viability of the Aether Wave Theory. The 'many worlds' theory offers a logical alternative explanation.
The only problem is, 'many worlds' concept itself isn't so intuitive as nobody did saw some many worlds yet. The AWT doesn't uses such ad-hoced counterintuitive concepts at all. It just considers, every piece of observable reality is composed of many other pieces. BTW The AWT can explain it too.
...it explains the experiment, but not the phenomenon. ..
How the explanation of phenomenon differs from the explanation of experiment, demonstrating such phenomenon?
...experiment doesn't necessarily demonstrate that particles even have a wave nature..
But it can serve as an indicia, because we are observing a wave interference patterns in it. Of course it's not the final proof of such nature, but here many others experiments, which are demonstrating the wave nature of particles too.
...the experiment doesn't necessarily demonstrate ...the viability of the Aether Wave Theory...
If some theory can explain some phenomenon by more simple way by using fewer ad-hoced assumptions/postulates then the others, it makes it more viable then the others by Occam's razor criterion. This is simply how the scientific method is working.
